On 17 Dec 2016 at 0:50, Peter Dimov wrote:
Bringing it back to the review of Stacktrace which this is (and not of Exception, another discussion thread would suit that), I am seeing the following options proposed for Stacktrace: [snip] This is proving to be a distraction from the Stacktrace review and I think that we need to postpone this discussion for when Stacktrace is accepted.
I agree. 1. Can those talking about Boost.Exception please move their discussion to a new thread and stop distracting from the Stacktrace review thread? I'm not saying it's not valuable discussion, just please start a new thread. 2. I have seen repeated comments by more than one person of "Stacktrace would need to have XXX functionality to do ...". Please consider reviewing Stacktrace as presented before making more of these comments. About 80% of those comments Stacktrace already has that functionality and you are wasting time proving a rationale for them being implemented because it's implemented already. For the 20% of the time Stacktrace doesn't have something, I need to see a formal review from you saying "Stacktrace needs YYY functionality to do ..." 3. Please could people actually review Stacktrace's implementation code instead of inferring implementation from what someone else said here about something they half read in the tutorial. Specifically, is its API design solid? Is the use of std::string in its public API acceptable? Is its stacktrace capturing implementation malloc free? That sort of thing. These are the sorts of non-hand-waving review feedback we need. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/